Sorry I don't agree........
........The Iraqis just didn't wake up and decide to create a totally different type of war. Depravity of human against human has an old history and the Europeans of the past were well aware of it.

Most of it was taught to other countries by the British!

You are right, there have always been terrorists, many of whom now form legitimate governments. The IRA blew up the household cavalry and Lord Mountbatten, it is nothing new, one reason security was everywhere yesterday!

The royals are different, but only up to a point and that doesn't mean their children are more important than anyone elses. If it's OK for any other British soldier to be fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, then Harry and William should, as paid members of the armed services, also go!

If they are not going to be 'real' soldiers, they should resign their commissions. All other soldiers, clerks, musicians, etc are sent out to fight, so the people who organise or have other trades are not exempt. If it is purely for the 'experience' for if he becomes King, then do it unpaid!

The Iraqis just didn't wake up and decide to create a totally different type of war. Depravity of human against human has an old history and the Europeans of the past were well aware of it.

No one said the Iraqis created a totally different kind of war.

Wars today, are different period, because of terrorism (which is not new, but technologies and other factors have made it different). It's complicated and I don't know how to explain it. I have taken classes on the history of terrorism but I can't find the words to explain it and it take too much time, and it's wildly off topic.... Well, let's just say that I stand by my opinion that wars and terrorism are different today, and it is mostly to do with the progress of science and technology. Atrocities are nothing new, true enough, but science today has allowed atrocities to be accomplished literally with the snap of a finger. It's a little different than galloping on a horse with a sword and shield....

Does anyone remember what William said about his then-possible future in the army in 2004? I wonder if William remembers, and what he thinks about it now. Does he, as he suggested might happen, feel humiliated by the bruising he has from critics about being a "plastic soldier"? He more or less repeated these words to Matt Lauer earlier this year.

Quote:

"I would not want to be kept back for being precious, or whatever, that's the last thing I'd want. It's the most humiliating thing and it would be something I'd find very awkward to live with, being told I couldn't go out there when these guys have got to go out there and do a bad job."

[Matt Lauer voiceover]: Three weeks after our interview, the Ministry of Defense decided the risk was just too great. Harry will not deploy to Iraq, although there's speculation he might be sent to Afghanistan. If any war zone proves too risky for Harry, you can be sure that 24-year-old William, the future king, won't be going either. It's a fact William seems reluctant to accept.

Prince William: Well, I don't know that yet. Because, otherwise, what's the point of me doing all my training and being there for my guys when I can turn around to somebody and say, "Well, I'm far too important. I'm not going."

Then if that's the case, why has he wasted public money by training for a job he can't do? At least Harry showed some enthusiasm for going and genuine disappointment at not being allowed to go.

He's training for the job of King, not career Army officer. Charles didn't go into the Navy with the expectation of spending most of his life as a serving officer, and the same is true for William. The question of being deployed in a war zone didn't arise during Charles's Navy years, but it might have done, and it would have been interesting to see what might have happened.

Harry is a bit different because, as the second son he could conceiveably he a career serving officer, in which case he needs to be able to do the things that career officers do.

It seems that the Royal Family still think that a background in the Armed Forces is a useful attribute for a senior royal. That may not always be the case, but as long as Prince Philip is a force in the family, I don't see it changing.

You are right, there have always been terrorists, many of whom now form legitimate governments. The IRA blew up the household cavalry and Lord Mountbatten, it is nothing new, one reason security was everywhere yesterday!

The royals are different, but only up to a point and that doesn't mean their children are more important than anyone elses. If it's OK for any other British soldier to be fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, then Harry and William should, as paid members of the armed services, also go!

If they are not going to be 'real' soldiers, they should resign their commissions. All other soldiers, clerks, musicians, etc are sent out to fight, so the people who organise or have other trades are not exempt. If it is purely for the 'experience' for if he becomes King, then do it unpaid!

Well, Skydragon, you are right, too. I think that that was Beatrix Fan's point, too. If you can't serve fully, your out. No uniforms, not rankings, no soldier. You must be able to serve fully. If their children are more important, then they can't claim membership in the club. If I had a kid in Iraq, etc, I would wonder why they can march and receive salutes, but they cannot serve. Don't tell me about terrorism. The Joneses and the Smiths sons are in the army and no one said, we cannot send them here, because they are too precious. By the way, if you know anything about the history of war, being whacked with a sword was a terrible thing. No one said they should serve in Iraq, the argument is that they shouldn't be in the army, because the really are not. By the way, the reason they are princes, is that their forebears wielded a mighty sword and went into battle.

No one said they should serve in Iraq, the argument is that they shouldn't be in the army, because they really are not.

They are in the army, though. As many have pointed out before in this thread, being in the army does not merely mean serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are a multitude of jobs in the army that require many enlisted and officers to stay in their homeland and serve in supportive duties.

It's the same with the navy. You don't have to be on a ship to be a sailor.

With the air force, you don't have to be flying planes to be an airman.

You don't have to be on the front lines to be in the military, period. No, not even when there is a war going on.

If William and Harry are just playing dress up, then all their fellow soldiers who are based at the same duty station where they work, well, all of them are playing dress up too, because by your argument, if you are not serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, you're not a real soldier, or really in the army.

So does being King mean he has to wear a uniform? Could he not just be the first monarch who doesn't play dress up?

Perhaps not at the Cenotaph, but male colonels and colonels-in-chief are expected to wear their uniforms at regimental events (trooping the colour), even in the absence of previous military service. To do otherwise would be seen as rude by the regiment itself.

They are in the army, though. As many have pointed out before in this thread, being in the army does not merely mean serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are a multitude of jobs in the army that require many enlisted and officers to stay in their homeland and serve in supportive duties.

It's the same with the navy. You don't have to be on a ship to be a sailor.

With the air force, you don't have to be flying planes to be an airman.

You don't have to be on the front lines to be in the military, period. No, not even when there is a war going on.

If William and Harry are just playing dress up, then all their fellow soldiers who are based at the same duty station where they work, well, all of them are playing dress up too, because by your argument, if you are not serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, you're not a real soldier, or really in the army.

No, no. The point isn't that the others are not soldiers. Of course, they are. But they could, at any moment, be shipped to any difficult designation, changing where they are today. Harry and William cannot. It is not their fault. But they cannot claim to be in the same status as those that could, which goes for the entire force, except them.

I understand what you are saying, Countess, or I think I do, but I still think it's like comparing apples to oranges. In the same sense, Prince William and Prince Harry will always be singled out.

The more I think about it, the more I respect them. At least they are trying to do what they can do instead of being discouraged by what they can't do. Isn't that what all of us try to do? We just do what we are able to do.
No one can do everything. We all have limitations. But we make the most of it....

As I said, it is not their fault. I don't think it is a waste of money training them. Lord, knows, people go to college and get a degree in one thing and do something else entirely. At least, they will have an appreciation of what it takes to start to be a soldier. The rest life has decided for them. Harry could have really served, but as long as William is without a direct heir, Harry is it. It was a damned if he did, damned if he didn't situation. I, certainly, do not know what is right or wrong.

It seems that the Royal Family still think that a background in the Armed Forces is a useful attribute for a senior royal. That may not always be the case, but as long as Prince Philip is a force in the family, I don't see it changing.

It must date back to medieval times, when Kings and Princes led their armies into wars. And, some lost their lives in battle. Now it just seems to be symbolic, but something that is required of heirs to the throne. But as a custom for senior royals to do this, if they are never going to be usefully contributing for what they get trained in, than maybe they should be banned from military training and just get moved into charitable causes and country representation functions sooner. Though I do wonder if Harry would have been deployed if his mother was still alive. Another senseless death of a too young royal might just ruin the monarchy.

Yeah, I don't know what's right or wrong either.... I figure, leave it to the experts (the generals at Whitehall) to know whether it's appropriate for the princes to go to a war zone. After all, they get paid the big bucks to make the big decisions....

It must date back to medieval times, when Kings and Princes led their armies into wars. And, some lost their lives in battle. Now it just seems to be symbolic, but something that is required of heirs to the throne. But as a custom for senior royals to do this, if they are never going to be usefully contributing for what they get trained in, than maybe they should be banned from military training and just get moved into charitable causes and country representation functions sooner. Though I do wonder if Harry would have been deployed if his mother was still alive. Another senseless death of a too young royal might just ruin the monarchy.

But how do you know what is a useful job in the army? How do you gage what are the useful jobs and the useless jobs? And furthermore, how can you know which kind of job, useful or useless, the princes have?

Quote:
Thank God the Queen was a steadying influence on all the Windsor grandchildren (William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Peter, Zara) because they would have had a tougher time otherwise.
No. IMO this is the worst thing that could have happened. As I said previously, Edwardian advice in a 21st Century world doesn't work. The Queen is a darling but her time has gone. Now she is the white-haired old lady in the crown who never puts a foot wrong and you love her because you should. If she doesn't go to a registry office wedding we say, "Well, it's her generation". If William takes her choices, he'll be seen as old-fashioned and out of touch. And thats a very very thin patch of ice to be tap-dancing on.

It sounds like you are saying people shouldn't take advice from their grandparents. I don't love her because I should, that would be rather stupid to blindly love someone just because you are told to. I think she has a lot of good advice to give the "younger generations", and it is certainly far from being the worst thing that could have happened.

I think military men do sometimes have a reputation for living life to the full, including having a fairly riotous social life. However, I agree that William and Harry should be somewhat more mindful of their image since they're army officers during a time when troops are deployed in a war zone. I'm sure William is doing more with his life than hanging around clubs and getting drunk, but that's what shows up in the papers and it gives people the impression that it's all he's doing. The princes seem to be being let down by their PR people at the moment if they really think they can carry on the way they're going and not end up being heavily criticised for it.

I will merely add, Elspeth, that a number of my family members were and are active army officers. Of course, they do, indeed, live somewhat riotously, but that's nearly always when their lives, and the lives of their friends and colleagues are lost or endangered.

Further, I do not believe that the princes are 'being let down by their PR'. It's painful to admit, but I do not think that the world's greatest PR team could turn this sow's ear of their continual self-indulgent behaviour, into any sort of a silk purse.

I'm the last person to criticise youthful hi-jinks or silliness, or out-of-hand behaviour, but they're not 'lads' any longer. William, especially, is starting to let people down. From recent photos of him, he's even starting to lose his good-looks, which, sad to say, will work against him in today's media-mad world if he doesn't pull his socks up!

I wish William all success and happiness, but who can tell me what he's done, to date, which is special and remarkable.

I suspect that Beatrixfan is right: William is proving a dead bore. Young Harry, at least, has his good work in Africa for us to positively reflect on.

It seems that the Royal Family still think that a background in the Armed Forces is a useful attribute for a senior royal. That may not always be the case, but as long as Prince Philip is a force in the family, I don't see it changing.

I don't think it is just Phillip. The services (from officer perspective), are supposed to teach. among other things, leadership and self discipline. Ideal subjects for young men and women, sadly these lessons seem to have passed William and Harry by.

Having said all of that, it does give small comfort to other soldiers, that the man who is going to be their 'leader' as head of the armed sevices one day, has at least completed the tough training at RMAS.

Most soldiers, officers and other ranks do live life to the full, even when their friends and colleagues are risking their lives, but most other soldiers staggering out of clubs, bleary eyed, would by now have been put up on a charge.

I think most of us understand, to some extent, why William will never be allowed to fight, but there is not, IMO, any reason to mollycoddle Harry. There are many trades within the armed forces that do not fight, as such, but they are still sent to war zones. Even the chippy's go out, if only to make boxes to bring their comrades home in.

No, no. The point isn't that the others are not soldiers. Of course, they are. But they could, at any moment, be shipped to any difficult designation, changing where they are today. Harry and William cannot. It is not their fault. But they cannot claim to be in the same status as those that could, which goes for the entire force, except them.

One article said that harry sometimes is the only lieutenant of his regiment to be at the barracks in Windsor - the others are in Iracq. And he is sitting in a military barrack watching the castle his ancestors built, have reigned in, which will one day belong to his father and then his brother. It's such an enormous symbol of the past which shaped so much in Harry's life and IMHO he must feel often very helpless wehn because of the past he is not even allowed to fight. So instead he "plays" around doing "male" things instead of doing something worthy.

It must have been difficult for a down-to-earth girl like Chelsy to watch this from afar - and to realize that when she came to be at least in the same country, he turned her down, went out with his boys instead, partying with other girls and even starting to forget her brithday before he even had a chance to forget their wedding anniverseries...

Mind, I understand how a young man can be so unhappy about things, but as long as he has not finished the basic training required of a successful cadet, he can't drop out of the military. He is in a situation where he has to learn from being not able to change things because that's what his life is about: being who he is without a chance to change things other than from within himself - he can change, the situation will not go away. And if he looks for challenges - why doen't he play at least polo sucessfully for his regiment or ven his country? Noone would mind if a young officer who cannot go to war directly turns to fighting for the honour of his regiment. Instead he puts his dad, granddad and grandmother to shame through being a suspect in the killing of protected birds. Hey, anyone who can shoot can kill these birds - the difference between a hunter and a animal-slaughter is to know which animals to kill and for what reasons. It shows a lack of responsibility and while I believe the elder and higher ranked officers have done their best to install that feeling in Harry (and William), I have the feeling they failed.

One does not think queen Elisabeth or young king George III. (before he became ill) or Edward Plantagenent or Richard Lionheart as ancestors, one thinks of weak Edward VIII. or spoilt and debauched prince regent (later king) George (IV.) and his strange collection of brothers when one thinks of William as the last of this illustrous line so far. A sad thought.

__________________

__________________'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.